US to step aside for Turkish assault on Kurds in Syria

VySky said:

The is a masterful move by POTUS. Let the 3 of them sort it out. Russia, the Turks and Kurds. Biggest win is now Iran is hosed. The open pipeline to Lebanon is history. POTUS is showing great support for our NATO partner Turkey. Brilliant move to bring our sons and daughters home from wars abroad that have no direct benefit for America

-VySky

Click to expand...

Is that why the military and experts in the State Department are bewildered by the plan which they view as reckless?

Kurds are about to be slaughtered as America takes sides in an ancient dispute, betraying people who fought alongside us in Iraq, and risking blowback that Americans are unlikely to understand if and when it happens. Is anyone confident that the same decision would have been made if there were a Trump Tower Kurdistan just like there's a Trump Tower Istanbul?

In his defense, he did say he knew more than the generals.

jmotivator said:

False. Obama scuttled the Status of Forces agreement with Iraq. The story of how that SOFA fell apart is rather disgusting. Maliki was in a heated fight within his own country between the minority faction that wanted no troops, and the Maliki supporters who wanted more. At every pivotal point in the negotiations, as Maliki was solidifying support for a given number of troops, Obama would come back and lower the number. Eventually as Maliki was getting support for the 10-15K troop number Obama lowered his offer to 3K, at which point it was not even a functional military detachment. So, while the Iraqi government was left reeling yet again on a pull back by Obama the administration decided to push a known hot button in Iraqi politics, they wanted an agreement that stated that US troops could not be held responsible for crimes committed while in Iraq.

That last demand left Maliki politically exposed and scuttled the SOFA. It is hard to believe that Obama could have made so many unforced errors and have it not be on purpose. In fact, Obama announced the withdrawal as keeping a promise!

Obama was as dishonest a negotiator in the Iraq SOFA as he was everywhere else.

U.S. and Iraq Had Not Expected Troops Would Have to Leave - The New York Times

Click to expand...

What you fail to mention is that iraq demanded us troops be held in iraqi civilian court for any crimes rather than a military tribunal, no sane president left or right wing would agree to such terms as to have american soldiers tried by a civilian iraqi court run by members who want us service members dead. This is the absolute reason the sofa could not be renegotiated, and iraq refused to bow down on their demands until they were over run.

beerftw said:

What you fail to mention is that iraq demanded us troops be held in iraqi civilian court for any crimes rather than a military tribunal, no sane president left or right wing would agree to such terms as to have american soldiers tried by a civilian iraqi court run by members who want us service members dead. This is the absolute reason the sofa could not be renegotiated, and iraq refused to bow down on their demands until they were over run.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't fail to mention it. It's right there in my response. Had Obama not backpedaled from 30k troops to 15k, from 15k to 10k and then down to 3K then he would have been able to make the deal. The major sticking point for Maliki was that his supporters needed to feel they were getting something for going against the brewing public opposition. Obama took everything the Iraqis needed off the table and only then did he decide to break it to them that he was also not going to entertain anything else they might have needed politically.

Obama wrecked the SOFA talks, nobody else. He is a disingenuous scumbag when it comes to negotiating... he was that way with everyone but the Iranians, strangely enough. He couldn't drop to his knees fast enough for the Iranians.

Hell, his Middle East policy was so monumentally disastrous that not only did he ensure that the US would leave Iraq before it was wise to, he armed the Syrian rebels who also happened to be ISIS, and then sent billions of dollars to Iran that Iran then used to fund terror networks all over the middle east. It was so precisely the most stupid strategy imaginable that it is almost like his ultimate goal was to help solidify Iran as the top dog in the Middle East, and Russia as the chief influencer.

Amelia said:

Obama ****ed that up..

Click to expand...

what? JM is literally posting every delusion that pops into his head. Not one thing he posted is backed up by his link. Iraq simply wouldn't budge on immunity and Bush signed the deal. Bush and his hand pick PM **** up.

jmotivator said:

No, I didn't fail to mention it. It's right there in my response. Had Obama not backpedaled from 30k troops to 15k, from 15k to 10k and then down to 3K then he would have been able to make the deal. The major sticking point for Maliki was that his supporters needed to feel they were getting something for going against the brewing public opposition. Obama took everything the Iraqis needed off the table and only then did he decide to break it to them that he was also not going to entertain anything else they might have needed politically.

Obama wrecked the SOFA talks, nobody else. He is a disingenuous scumbag when it comes to negotiating... he was that way with everyone but the Iranians, strangely enough. He couldn't drop to his knees fast enough for the Iranians.

Hell, his Middle East policy was so monumentally disastrous that not only did he ensure that the US would leave Iraq before it was wise to, he armed the Syrian rebels who also happened to be ISIS, and then sent billions of dollars to Iran that Iran then used to fund terror networks all over the middle east. It was so precisely the most stupid strategy imaginable that it is almost like his ultimate goal was to help solidify Iran as the top dog in the Middle East, and Russia as the chief influencer.

Click to expand...

No matter the number of forces, he would not agree to proper terms, and demanded absurd requirements for us troops to remain, no sane negotiator needing us troops would place such a demand. It would be like requesting firefighters stand by incase of fires but they must pay the neighborhood for the privilage of keeping them safe.

If maliki had literally dropped that one demand there would have been no issues.

Rosie1 said:

It's wrong, wrong, wrong, if Trump leaves the Kurds hanging out to dry. Other allies are protesting tRrump's plan and so is Nicki Haley.

One has to wonder if the latest plan was suggested to tRump by Putin.

Click to expand...

It really is the only explanation.

Vern said:

what? JM is literally posting every delusion that pops into his head. Not one thing he posted is backed up by his link. Iraq simply wouldn't budge on immunity and Bush signed the deal. Bush and his hand pick PM **** up.

Click to expand...

My opinion at the time was that Obama didn't get the job done. Of course it wasn't an easy job, but being president isn't supposed to be easy.

Suffice it to say, I was not an Obama supporter.


I was a Republican ... until the Republicans became the party of Trump. Forgive me for not liking Obama. I didn't. I don't. But Trump is worse than Obama in every way. And Trump supporters would have cursed Obama for doing what Trump just did to the Kurds. Trump would have given Obama hell for doing what Trump just did to the Kurds, especially how Trump did it -- not listening to his military advisors -- blindsiding the Pentagon that way. So now all JM has is "but Obama" because there is no defense for Trump.

jmotivator said:

Had Obama not backpedaled from 30k troops to 15k, from 15k to 10k and then down to 3K then he would have been able to make the deal. The major sticking point for Maliki was that his supporters needed to feel they were getting something for going against the brewing public opposition. Obama took everything the Iraqis needed off the table and only then did he decide to break it to them that he was also not going to entertain anything else they might have needed politically.

Click to expand...

You simply have no grasp of reality. the Iraqis didn't want us there. President Obama reducing the troop count wasn't "backpeddling" it was him trying to convince Maliki to let us keep troops there. Please, in your own owns explain how reducing the troop count was backpedaling. Its your narrative. And what else besides "you can put our troops on trial in your courts" did President Obama "take off the table". Again, its your narrative. If you don't reply, then we'll know who the real "disingenuous scumbag" is.

I think people fail to realize here that syria and iran will not openly allow turkey to knock out the kurds, and russia backs syria, and also the kurds are no slouch. Between the kurds and shia militia and assads current army they all share similarities in willingness to fight and use of squad level as well as brigade level tactics in warfare. Turkey had a hard time taking afrin despite vastly overpowering the kurds and their only support being a tiny detatchment from syria and iran, as at the time they were busy with ghouta and other provinces and could not spare much, despite the us not supporting them and minimal support iran and syria could throw their way, the kurds made what should have been an easy mission for the turks into a long one.

I forget how long ago it was but I remember reading about the turkish military going deeper into syria and picking a fight with assads forces only to lose and retreat, the turkish military is not all that, they are pathetic and weak, and have been such since the whole coup attemp with erdogan purging the military after, depriving them of much of their leadership and mimicking arab militaries in their mentality of protecting a dictator or monarch over defending a nation. I also in the first paragraph mentioned assads current army, I did this because what he had at the start was an absolute joke, his army only became powerful much like iraqs when the cowards fled and those dedicated to their cause remained and adopted shia style military tactics like used by iran hezbollah and the sadr brigade in iraq.

EnigmaO01 said:

Bull****. We never armed ISIS.

Click to expand...

Oh yes we did!

"A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria."

We knew before we ever started sending weapons to Syrian revolutionaries that they were full of former Al Qaeda fighters from Iraq. And yet we armed them anyway... and we left Iraq, giving those al Qaeda militants a huge opening to take our weapons and go kill Iraqi civilians by the hundreds of thousands, almost eradicating the Yazidis.

And hey, that wasn't even Obama's only major blunder in that whole cluster F. He also overthrew Qaddafi in Libya who had long since been an active participant in fighting Al Qaeda on the African continent under the guise of humanitarian rescue of the "Arab Spring" in Libya... which was ALSO chock full of Al Qaeda militants. So as Hillary would later laugh "We came, we saw, he died!" ... while the aftermath of the moronic Libya campaign saw al Qaeda flags flying in Libyan cities.

Obama was an unmitigated disaster.

trixare4kids said:

What proof do you have that shows Trump is allowing the Turks to walk over the Kurds?
You don't believe that Trump's threat to destroy and obliterate Turkey's economy is enough?

Click to expand...

When does the obliteration start?

Middle East news: Turkey launches airstrike after US confirms withdrawal

Vern said:

You simply have no grasp of reality. the Iraqis didn't want us there. President Obama reducing the troop count wasn't "backpeddling" it was him trying to convince Maliki to let us keep troops there. Please, in your own owns explain how reducing the troop count was backpedaling. Its your narrative. And what else besides "you can put our troops on trial in your courts" did President Obama "take off the table". Again, its your narrative. If you don't reply, then we'll know who the real "disingenuous scumbag" is.

Click to expand...

False. The Iraqis absolutely wanted US troops there. They wanted MORE troops than Obama was willing to give them because he was trying to meet a campaign promise of ending the war in Iraq in the lead up to the 2012 election. Maliki had repeatedly worked to solidify support for troops remaining in Iraq, only to have Obama pull the rug out from under him. THOSE are the facts, and those were the facts that the NYT reported before they realized exactly how damning their story would be after the rise of ISIS.

Amelia said:

My opinion at the time was that Obama didn't get the job done. Of course it wasn't an easy job, but being president isn't supposed to be easy.

Suffice it to say, I was not an Obama supporter.


I was a Republican ... until the Republicans became the party of Trump. Forgive me for not liking Obama. I didn't. I don't. But Trump is worse than Obama in every way. And Trump supporters would have cursed Obama for doing what Trump just did to the Kurds. Trump would have given Obama hell for doing what Trump just did to the Kurds, especially how Trump did it -- not listening to his military advisors -- blindsiding the Pentagon that way. So now all JM has is "but Obama" because there is no defense for Trump.

Click to expand...

You said he ***** up. President Obama did everything he could do to convince Bush's hand picked Pm to let us keep troops there. They simply didn't want us there and it was in writing that we had to leave. they made a demand that simply could not be agreed to. I'm just not seeing what you see to claim he "**** up".

jmotivator said:

False. The Iraqis absolutely wanted US troops there. They wanted MORE troops than Obama was willing to give them because he was trying to meet a campaign promise of ending the war in Iraq in the lead up to the 2012 election. Maliki had repeatedly worked to solidify support for troops remaining in Iraq, only to have Obama pull the rug out from under him. THOSE are the facts, and those were the facts that the NYT reported before they realized exactly how damning their story would be after the rise of ISIS.

Click to expand...

If they wanted more troops they would not have made such an absurd demand as a condition being there, it defies all logic that they wanted them there but placed a demand no nation on earth would agree to.

jmotivator said:

False. The Iraqis absolutely wanted US troops there. They wanted MORE troops than Obama was willing to give them because he was trying to meet a campaign promise of ending the war in Iraq in the lead up to the 2012 election. Maliki had repeatedly worked to solidify support for troops remaining in Iraq, only to have Obama pull the rug out from under him. THOSE are the facts, and those were the facts that the NYT reported before they realized exactly how damning their story would be after the rise of ISIS.

Click to expand...

Of course you didn't explain how reducing the troop level was "back pedaling". I knew you wouldn't. And even your latest falsehood "Iraq wanted more troops" doesn't explain how reducing the troop count was "backpedaling". Iraqis wanted us out. If they wanted us to stay, they would have simply extended immunity for our troops. That was their decision. There is simply no honest way to spin that as President Obama's fault. And trying to is exactly what makes you what you called President Obama.

Vern said:

You said he ***** up. President Obama did everything he could do to convince Bush's hand picked Pm to let us keep troops there. They simply didn't want us there and it was in writing that we had to leave. they made a demand that simply could not be agreed to. I'm just not seeing what you see to claim he "**** up".

Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue the point with you.

I posted to JM. I posted to someone who is defending Trump for ****ing up by saying "but Obama". Trump ****s up worse than Obama practically every day of his presidency. "But Obama" is no excuse for what Trump is doing. And I'm telling that to the person who is saying "but Obama".



I don't expect to change any minds of people who defend Obama.


I'm just shining the spotlight on people who spent the Obama years trashing Obama while spending the Trump years defending Trump's incompetence and treachery ... and excusing it by saying "but Obama".

Simon W. Moon said:

When does the obliteration start?

Middle East news: Turkey launches airstrike after US confirms withdrawal

Turkey launches airstrike after US confirms withdrawal​

8:16am Oct 8, 2019​

​

Turkish combat aircraft carried out an airstrike against a Kurdish and Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) military base in Syria's Hasakah province, local media reports.​

It came after US President Donald Trump defended a decision to withdraw American troops from northern Syria, saying it was too costly to keep supporting US allied, Kurdish-led forces in the region fighting Islamic State militants.​

Click to expand...

I'd be careful with the "news" coming out for that region right now. A bridge has been blown up; Syria claims Turkey attacked them, Russia says Turkey attacked Syria, Turkey denies it, Kurdish media deny it, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the airstrikes hit targets in Iraq, etc. etc. etc.

There will be lots of false information coming in the near future.

jmotivator said:

False. The Iraqis absolutely wanted US troops there. They wanted MORE troops than Obama was willing to give them because he was trying to meet a campaign promise of ending the war in Iraq in the lead up to the 2012 election. Maliki had repeatedly worked to solidify support for troops remaining in Iraq, only to have Obama pull the rug out from under him. THOSE are the facts, and those were the facts that the NYT reported before they realized exactly how damning their story would be after the rise of ISIS.

Click to expand...

JM, the NYT article doesn't back up anything you've posted. Please cut and paste the parts you think do. And again you've yet to explain "backpedaling". The facts you'll never grasp is that Iraq didn't want us there. and the proof is they refused to give our troops immunity. they made that decision. None of your lies or spin can change that fact.

Barnacle said:

I'd be careful with the "news" coming out for that region right now. A bridge has been blown up; Syria claims Turkey attacked them, Russia says Turkey attacked Syria, Turkey denies it, Kurdish media deny it, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the airstrikes hit targets in Iraq, etc. etc. etc.

There will be lots of false information coming in the near future.

Click to expand...

Exactly... It's uncanny how the Trump resisters are so eager to blame Trump that they will even go so far as believing initial "news" reports. How about we exercise some patience, and wait to hear from our intelligence? Anything it takes to promote a fake narrative against this president, it would seem.

Amelia said:

I'm not going to argue the point with you.

I posted to JM. I posted to someone who is defending Trump for ****ing up by saying "but Obama". Trump ****s up worse than Obama practically every day of his presidency. "But Obama" is no excuse for what Trump is doing. And I'm telling that to the person who is saying "but Obama".

I don't expect to change any minds of people who defend Obama.

I'm just shining the spotlight on people who spent the Obama years trashing Obama while spending the Trump years defending Trump's incompetence and treachery ... and excusing it by saying "but Obama".

Click to expand...

I find both of your responses deflecting and disappointing. Next time just don't hit the reply button if you don't want to reply.

OscarLevant said:

The vast block of trump voters are simple people who are unaware of the complexities of the world and think and see life in simplistic terms which Trump has cleverly manipulated. In a sense, you could hold them responsible true but they are victims of a master manipulator con artist so I hold Trump responsible for without Trump we would have had Jeb or Kasich and we would not be where we are today

On the other hand, you do have a point that voters have a responsibility not to be easily duped to be informed and to see people like Trump for who he really is

Click to expand...

I knew who and what Trump was back in the 1980's. Its the reason I did not vote for him, his politics have zero to do with my decision. I would not vote for him if he was still a Dem. Either way he has zero integrity, which is a vital leadership quality.

beerftw said:

If they wanted more troops they would not have made such an absurd demand as a condition being there, it defies all logic that they wanted them there but placed a demand no nation on earth would agree to.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't defy logic. There were political concerns within the Iraqi government of the cost of keeping US troops in Iraq, absolutely, but the peace they offered was more valuable than that cost. The only reason that the Iraqis started leaning on the jurisdiction issue was because the Obama administration was continually diminishing the security he was willing to offer the Iraqis. By the time Obama reduced the number to 3,000 there was no way for Maliki to sell the deal to the Iraqi leadership.

In the end, Obama got what he wanted, and he campaigned on it. He ended the war in Iraq. It just becomes inconvenient to the Obama fans given all the horror his decisions would bring to the people of Iraq.

Vern said:

I find both of your responses deflecting and disappointing. Next time just don't hit the reply button if you don't want to reply.

Click to expand...

Oh brother.

You're the one letting JM lead you down the "but Obama" detour, but my ability not to join you in falling for his deflection disappoints you. So very sorry.


The bottom line is that "but Obama" is not a defense for Trump's bad behavior. But you're so invested in defending Obama that you're letting JM play you. Now you're arguing about Obama instead of keeping the spotlight on Trump's live action trainwreck.

Amelia said:

Oh brother.

You're the one letting JM lead you down the "but Obama" detour, but my ability not to join you in falling for his deflection disappoints you. So very sorry.


The bottom line is that "but Obama" is not a defense for Trump's bad behavior. But you're so invested in defending Obama that you're letting JM play you. Now you're arguing about Obama instead of keeping the spotlight on Trump's live action trainwreck.

Click to expand...

JM is posting nothing but falsehoods. He once again proves that conservatives cant criticize President Obama without lying. I've asked him to explain and back up his posts. I've not asked you to do anything except to not hit the reply button if you're not going to reply.

jmotivator said:

No, it doesn't defy logic. There were political concerns within the Iraqi government of the cost of keeping US troops in Iraq, absolutely, but the peace they offered was more valuable than that cost. The only reason that the Iraqis started leaning on the jurisdiction issue was because the Obama administration was continually diminishing the security he was willing to offer the Iraqis. By the time Obama reduced the number to 3,000 there was no way for Maliki to sell the deal to the Iraqi leadership.

In the end, Obama got what he wanted, and he campaigned on it. He ended the war in Iraq. It just becomes inconvenient to the Obama fans given all the horror his decisions would bring to the people of Iraq.

Click to expand...

I am going to tell you that I was one of those people who was disappointed that Obama pulled out without the forethought of what it might do to the people of Iraq. I was against the Iraq war, but I also realized that because of our country's commitment, we shouldn't have left Iraq high and dry at the end. We know what motivated Obama and it was the fact that he promised to end the war and did so abruptly because he wanted to be reelected. At that time in his presidency his approval ratings were on par with Trump's today; 41-43. He withdrew and left the people in Iraq to fend for themselves because he was a selfish prick who only thought about himself. He learned later he was wrong, and sent back military advisers to help Iraq fight better against the onslaught of ISIS but it wasn't until he got reelected that he did the right thing, so Obama's foreign policy as far as Iraq went shall forever be a **** stain against our country.

I see Trump as a dove, much like myself...In this regard, he is a true conservative.
More than ever, I stand with this president. If Turkey screws the Kurds, we will get them where it hurts; ECONOMIC SANCTIONS.
Let the UN send in troops... tired of the U.S. fighting all these wars. Too expensive, and too much loss of American lives.